Jim Elvidge, electrical engineer and author of The Universe Solved, explores Nick Bostrom’s "Simulation Argument," arguing humanity either exists in a digital reality or risks self-destruction via reckless tech like nuclear weapons. He cites NASA’s NuSTAR observations of black hole "corona" as potential clues, while his theory—matter as 1-in-10^52 data—aligns with Fermi Lab’s holometer and quantum experiments. Elvidge links consciousness to a global "cloud," suggesting near-death experiences (NDEs) and DMT visions reveal soul-based evolution, not brain chemistry, challenging conventional physics and the nature of existence itself. [Automatically generated summary]
So I've got a few things that I want to get out before we go to our guest.
The Cold War is getting hot.
It really is getting hot fast.
Russia is going to now counter NATO's U.S.-led missile defense program by, they say, deploying new strike weapons capable of piercing the shield.
This is according to the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin.
Putin told defense officials that by developing defenses against ballistic missiles, Washington aims to neutralize Russia's strategic nuclear deterrent and gain a, quote, decisive military superiority.
He said, Moscow will respond by developing strike systems capable of penetrating any missile defenses.
He said over the past three years, companies of the military-industrial complex have created and successfully tested a number of prospective weapon systems that are capable of performing combat missions in a layered missile defense system.
Such systems have already begun to enter the military this year, and we are now talking about development of new types of weapons, said Putin.
So, you know, I really think that the Cold War is heating up really fast.
Look what's going on in Syria, or better yet, don't.
A small business jet, you may have seen it on CNN, crashed into an apartment, or Fox, into an apartment building with a huge bang on Tuesday, killing at least two people aboard, shaking furniture and homes several blocks away.
You can only imagine a jet crashing into your home, right?
While everyone, including the people across from me, were oohing and ahing and yelling aliens and UFO, that spectacular blue UFO right over Los Angeles, which of course turned out to be the launch of a trident from a submarine.
I don't get it.
I mean, really, the other folks were just screeching about that.
And when you go back to what I think is really important, and that is our star, Tabby.
Oh, but wait a minute.
The Allen telescope arrays took a quick one-week look, I believe, with the Green Bank at Tabby, and they didn't hear anything.
So all of a sudden, everybody's saying, well, I told you.
Nothing.
Good Lord.
Even talking to Seth Shostak, he said likely they're not going to hear anything.
It's too far away.
14.8 light years away, right?
Almost 15 light years away.
That's too far.
And besides, who's to say that they, if there is a they there, are even using radio?
So for people to begin discounting anything at all because the arrays didn't hear anything in a week is just ridiculous, while at the same time, pointing to something going from ground, or in this case, sea, the ocean, into the atmosphere has got to be aliens.
Oy vie.
So I thought I'd bring those things up.
A couple of other things that I want to bring up.
When do things come out of a black hole?
Well, never, right?
Well, wrong.
NASA, with two separate telescopes, just observed something coming out of a massive black hole, which I believe is Markaranian 335.
That's right.
Two of NASA's space telescopes, including the nuclear spectroscope, the telescope array NuSTAR, miraculously observed black holes, corona launched away from the supermassive black hole.
Whatever it is, anything that can launch itself out of a black hole, probably we don't want anything to do with, I would say.
Say that, fair?
Anything that comes out of a black hole has got to somehow be bad news.
And now to a little bit of tonight's topic coming up.
If you think about it, it's amazing that humans exist, right?
For life to start on Earth, we need...
Wouldn't you say?
We're amazing people.
We live in an amazing place.
And by that I mean, well, everything's just as it ought to be and how could that be unless somebody or something is that it up could we be living in a computer uh simulation well yes we could be would we know it no no we well there might be little
hints that we're in a simulation of some sort, right?
Every now and then there seems to be a glitch.
I think we're not actually that far from being able to create a simulated world ourselves.
Once we create beings that are autonomous, are artificially intelligent, we could certainly create a world.
I'm not saying it would be ethical or moral, but we could do it and watch these little people run around in this world we have created for them as somebody may be watching us.
Anyway, Jim Elvidge holds a master's degree in electrical engineering from Cornell University.
He has applied his training in the high-tech world as a leader in technology.
He holds four patents in digital signal processing, the kind of stuff we're talking about today, and has written articles for publications as diverse as Monitoring Times and the IEEE transactions on geoscience.
For many years, Elvidge has kept pace with the latest research theories and discoveries in the varied fields of subatomic physics, cosmology, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology.
This unique knowledge base has provided the foundation for his first book, The Universe Solved.
So, coming up in a moment, we're going to talk about this possibility of living in a completely simulated world with Jim Elvidge.
It should be very interesting.
And this is something I bet you haven't heard in a long, long time.
From the high desert.
This is midnight in the desert.
And believe me, it is a cold wind streaming out across this desert tonight.
Walking over here, I about froze to death.
unidentified
Walking over here, I'm going to talk about this possibility of a new world.
I'm going to talk about this possibility of a new world.
This is Midnight in the Desert.
To call the show, if you're east of midnight, call 1-952-CALL-ART.
You know, one of the challenges I have in talking about this stuff, Art, is there are so many paths to go down, so I have to try to, you know, stay focused on it.
on on one direction but I'll say up front that I think likely the sort of simulation idea is a little bit bigger than being in a computer simulation and I'm sure we'll get to that but speaking of the computer simulation idea Nick Bostrom who you've probably heard of is a philosopher from Oxford he posited back actually I think it was the same year that The Matrix came out in the 13th floor and a couple other movies that talked about the same topic.
He had this paper called The Simulation Argument.
And in his paper, he presents three possibilities, assuming that we get to the point where we create simulations that are indistinguishable from reality.
And it's pretty clear that we're going to do that.
I mean, we're already very close to that now with headsets and Oculus Rift and these kinds of things.
Probably another 20, 30 years, maybe less, that we get something that's so indistinguishable from reality that while we're experiencing it, we're totally immersed and we think we're in a reality.
So his argument goes like this.
Given that we're going to get to that point, and at that point, we'll create millions of different simulations, what are the odds that we're 20 years prior to that versus in one of those millions?
And therefore, the answer is the odds are pretty small.
So he said there's another possibility, which is we don't get there.
And there's two possible reasons why we wouldn't get there.
One, we destroy ourselves over the next 20 years before we reach that state, which he calls a post-human state.
And you've mentioned just a few of them, but even just the ability to have a reality, just the ability to have space, is incredibly improbable.
Something like, I think there's one part in 10 to the 115th where the universal constant cancels out vacuum energy.
That's a really incredible coincidence.
And they say that the deviation in the expansion rate of the early universe of one part in a billion, either way, would render the universe void.
It would either rip apart so fast that matter would not be able to form or it would contract on itself and disappear.
So and there's dozens of these kinds of things even before you get into the rare odds of creating life.
So yeah, it does seem to be lined up exactly perfectly, which some people would say, okay, well, that's evidence of a creator of sorts.
But then the scientific argument against that is the anthropic principle.
It's a combination of the anthropic principle, which says that, of course, we're in something that's perfectly designed because otherwise we wouldn't be here to observe it.
But that implies that there must be, you know, literally, and I know this isn't a word, zillions of other universes or other constructs out there in that sort of quantum mechanics mini worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
There has to be such an incredibly huge number of universes that don't have the right set of parameters to create matter and to create life.
And we just happen to be in the one that isn't.
And I don't know.
To me, that sounds like much more hand-waving than the idea that you have some large system that constantly improves on itself and fine-tunes itself over time, which is more the way I think the universe might have evolved.
And actually, it's interesting you bring that up, that probably the origin of those, you know, those elements of worship are things like spiritual experiences.
So most all religions have at their core a spiritual experience that they're based on.
The spiritual experience from Judaism and Islam and Christianity and other shamanistic religions, they have commonalities, which is very interesting in and of itself.
Those commonalities are things like the idea that we're all connected somehow and that we're connected to something greater and that God or whatever is within us.
And it's so consistent around the world and across time that you have to attach some significance to that.
So that in and of itself tells me that there's, you know, and of course religions then went off on different directions, mostly to control people, I think, but that nature of worshiping came from these spiritual experiences, not necessarily from, you know, a brain function.
In other words, as digital processing gets better and better and better, the ones in this program may be creating another program.
I'm saying we might create a digital world full of little artificially intelligent beings, and we could give them the world we want to give them, essentially creating their universe, right?
Andre Lind, I think it was, is a well-known physicist.
He said something like, and I'm probably going to botch his quote here, but on the surface of it, based on the evidence, it looks like the universe was created by a physicist hacker.
So, you know, even when we look at science, it looks like it has been created that way.
And there are a lot of people who speculate about the possibility of us playing God and being able to create a universe at some point.
So, you know, I think about, you know, we could really dive down into the idea of what reality really is.
We really are living in a subjective experience.
And in a way, we can create that by dreaming or imagining or whatever.
I think one of the things that keeps us in line is the fact that the way this system, and I'm going to call it a system, we could call it God, we could call it all that there is, but the way that it seems to work is that the reality that we think is hard that's in front of us, which isn't.
Physicists have proven that there is no objective reality.
I'm sure we'll get into that.
But that reality that seems hard has a high degree of consensus between different people.
So you see a blue car drive down the road.
I see a blue car.
We both say, hey, do you see that blue car?
So we both feel that each other has the same experience.
Therefore, that experience seems objective to us rather than subjective.
But it really is subjective.
You know, we are, you know, everything that we experience is based on signals that are being processed by our brain, if not, you know, a deeper kind of information.
So the fact that we all have this consensus reality is what kind of keeps us thinking that things are deterministic and continuous and materialist because that's what it looks like at the surface.
However, what's really interesting right now is that we have gone so far in technology and science that we're able to create experiments that are poking holes in that.
And that is just blowing away the minds of, you know, the more closed-minded scientists and fascinating the minds of the more open-minded ones.
So, occasionally, oh, I don't know about you, but occasionally I'll get my computer will freeze suddenly.
Or I'll get a blue screen.
That's really bad.
Or any number of things that happen with a computer and with programming, perfect as it may be, something somewhere in the machine, you know, throws up and it freezes.
So, I guess what I'm saying is what we call the paranormal, what I call the paranormal and talk about all the time on this radio program, maybe it's somebody's programming error, you know, some update that didn't happen quite right or something, and something glitches in our world, in our matrix, if you will, something that shouldn't happen according to the normal laws of
Yeah, no, that's definitely one way of looking at the paranormal as a mistake in the matrix.
It could also be something intentional.
Perhaps, you know, we're meant to be able to experience those things rarely, or certain people might be able to experience them, because it gives us a hint of a greater reality, and it gives us a hint of, or gives us the impetus to push forward with research and things like that, which is interesting and keeps things moving.
So, yeah, it could be either way.
But the paranormal, I mean, people freak out at that word, but, my goodness, you know, the studies that have been done really demonstrate that it exists.
I know you're aware of the Global Consciousness Project, Princeton.
People have done the estimates of the odds against chance of those eggs lining up the way they did to be on the order of a billion to one.
There's another professor, Daryl Bem, at Cornell University, did some precognition studies, were fascinating studies.
The odds against chance of those were something like a million to one.
And then Dean Radin, of course, did some meta-analysis of all these Gansfield studies, these telepathy studies, and found odds against chance was like one times ten to the sixteenth to one.
So it exists.
Yeah, the paranormal, or what we call paranormal, which you could call subtle energies or something like that, it exists.
There was even a cute little offshoot from what they did at that university, and they created a little program for computers.
I wonder if you ever saw it.
I can't remember the name of it now, but, for example, it would put a picture of Earth on your computer screen, and it would sort of go between Earth and total static, and then the Earth would begin to come back again.
And the object of the game was to sit there and concentrate as hard as you could in either getting complete static on the screen or the picture of the world on the screen.
And it was a sort of a mini consciousness experiment, and I'm telling you, I was pretty good at it.
And sure enough, similar kind of thing are, you know, I've had these experiences where I see the number 1111 all the time, and I have friends that do as well.
I don't know what the deal is with 1111, you know I started thinking oh well just coincidence I happen to be looking at my watch or my phone a lot so I of course I see it so I actually did I did the analysis of it I wrote down every single time I saw it and there's only two times during the day when you're going to see it over a period of two months I wrote every one down, and then I also did at a separate time, I estimated how often I looked at my phone.
There's certain avenues we can't pursue no matter how much we try to will ourselves to do it.
So in that sense, yeah, we're living in this construct and we're, as you mentioned, subject to the laws of physics, for example.
So yeah, there are some rules that we have to follow and we can't necessarily will our way around them, although some people seem to be able to do that now and then.
Premonitions, telepathy, and those kinds of things.
So that, I mean, again, that's a little evidence that there's just something much bigger than the sort of deterministic reality that we're told there is.
Well, you have a theory, right, called digital reality theory.
And it basically, I think, says that matter, like the desk in front of me, all this junk in front of me, is nothing really but, or could be nothing but data.
And you do get hurt because if you think about it, it's forces.
There are some rules going on there that say when the molecules in my fist get really, really close to the molecules in the desk, there's going to be some force that repels them quickly.
And that repulsion is creating the pain.
But it doesn't mean that there's any real stuff there.
In fact, we actually never really touch those molecules.
It's pretty much impossible to.
So I come at this from the idea of, if I look at the big picture of what we think reality is made of, the ancient Greeks and even back to, say, the 1800s, John Dalton's theory of the atomic model was that everything was made of atoms, these hard little billiard ball circles of gold or iron or whatever it was, whatever element it was, and they were all just jammed together.
So the only space that existed in a solid material was sort of the space between these atoms.
And if they're spherical, that ratio is like 0.74.
Now in 1911, Ernest Rutherford and others found that, whoa, you know, most of atoms are really empty space, and there's this little hard nucleus here, and everything else is empty space.
In fact, the size of the nucleus compared to the size of the rest of the atom is 1 over 10 to the 15th.
So it's, what's that, quadrillionth or something like that?
And so that was the theory for, and I say theory because these things just get overturned every so often.
That was the theory for 60 years until quark theory, quantum chromodynamics came around in the 60s and 70s.
And that theory said, well, even those hard little neutrons and protons that we think are the ultimate building blocks of matter, they're mostly empty space.
And they really consist of much, much smaller quarks that we've bounded the measurement of those things to be much smaller.
In fact, so now, as of 1970, the thought was, well, this solid matter is one part in 10 to the 30th, which is roughly equivalent to a grain of sand in all the grains of sand of the Earth.
So it's that tenuous.
And then along come the string theorists who say, oh, wait a minute, even quarks are nothing more than vibrating bits of string, and that string has the width of the Planck length, which is 10 to the minus 35th meters.
And so if you do that calculation, they're saying that quarks is mostly empty space.
And really, you know, matter, hard matter, is 1 times 10 to the minus 52.
So if you plot this out on Logarithmic paper, you realize that we lose about 15 orders of magnitude in our belief of how dense matter is.
We lose about 15 orders of magnitude every 65 or 70 years or so.
And so, where are we heading with this?
I mean, I think it's kind of obvious where we're heading.
There's no need to have stuff.
Matter is just data, and the forces are rules.
In fact, even the string theorists will say that a particle is defined only by the frequency of the vibration of the string.
Well, if it's defined by that frequency, then you don't need anything else.
You just need the number that corresponds to that frequency, and you can create whatever rules you need to create from there on out to create the physics that we have.
So there's no need for physical stuff.
I think that's just one of the logical arguments that matter is ultimately just data.
For there to be a continuous reality, all kinds of problems exist with that.
The idea of continuous reality means sort of infinite resolution.
And as far as the physics that we know, matter implodes into black holes at scales below the Planck level.
Relativity and quantum mechanics don't coexist.
And the only things that physicists can come up with that make quantum mechanics and relativity somewhat coexist are string theory and loop quantum gravity.
And those only work with a minimal length scale, so they're already discrete.
And here's another one, Art, is the idea of spins, particles that have spin.
This is a bizarre one.
These particles have an integral number of spins.
So certain particles have a half, not an integral, but a discrete number.
A half spin, one and a half spin, one spin, zero spin, things like that.
And when they undergo some sort of transformation, they instantaneously change their spin.
They don't go from a one spin down to a 0.9, a 0.8, and down to a 0.1, and then a 0, like in a continuous way.
It just snaps right from 1 to 0.
And there's nothing, that's completely anomalous in a continuous space-time model.
So the evidence is all out there that reality is discrete and digital.
In fact, we've never really measured anything to an accuracy below, I think, 10 to the minus 16th or 16 digits of accuracy.
So there's no real evidence for a continuous world.
It's just that we're at a macroscopic level.
Everything looks continuous.
But there's tons and tons of evidence for a discrete and digital world.
And so that does lend all the support to the idea that we're in some sort of, you know, I hesitate to use the word simulation because that implies...
Because, of course, this could be a digital construct of you can imagine anything.
It could be God.
It could be a God.
But then we get to this point where here we are in modern America.
And we're getting very close, I think, to something that approaches artificial intelligence.
I mean, if we get there and if we keep increasing technologically as quickly as we have been in, say, the last 50 years, it won't be all that long.
We'll be able to create a world ourselves.
But boy, what a lot of questions would go into that.
Sort of like a super second life or something, you know, where you create an entire world, but you've got autonomous beings walking around in it thinking, as we think, that we are acting with complete free will.
Yeah, and I think that's where this whole theory gets really interesting, because in my belief, there's another half to the idea.
We talked about the digital nature of things, but then there's the consciousness as the source of everything as opposed to an artifact of a complexity of a computational system, like the artifact of a brain.
I think consciousness is primary.
It's not something that just an emergent property.
So the evidence for that is all kinds of things, near-death experiences, out-of-body experiences, mystical experiences, paranormal, and so forth.
So if that's the case, then just creating an AI doesn't inject the, quote, soul into it, doesn't inject the consciousness into it, because consciousness is primary.
You know, you can't create an AI and inject consciousness into it, or hope the consciousness emerges from it if that's not the way it works.
I mean, honestly, all of this is theory, as everything else is just theory, but it's theory that has so much weight behind it.
So I think Tom Campbell's description of consciousness is a really good one.
He calls it organized bits.
Consciousness is organized data.
And I like that because, you know, at the real fundamental construct of reality, like way below what we're able to experience, things could be digital and our consciousness is embedded in that.
So it's something that we can't interact with because it's part of us.
And one of the things I've kind of thought about is if the construct That we make, the AI that we make is complex enough to house a soul, to house a consciousness that we're used to, our consciousness may decide to make the jump.
It may decide, oh, this is an interesting thing.
I'd like to experience what it's like to be a complex silicon beast as opposed to a complex carbon-based human beast and try it out.
These kinds of things are perfectly possible in the world that I'm describing.
In that world, you don't have sore backs and knees.
You don't walk around as you get older in pain.
That's a wonderful world.
And it's perhaps not in my lifetime, Jim, but it's going to be possible eventually, I suppose, to, as you've seen in many movies, download a human brain into a machine.
Well, you know, it's interesting you bring up the idea about sore backs and knees.
We have decided to, for whatever reason, spend a lot of effort and energy on life extension.
And if, as I believe, we are already immortal, you know, we have an immortal soul that reincarnates, then life extension is kind of a waste of energy.
We're going to, you know, our purpose is something beyond what we're here, you know, on the last 20 years of our life on earth to do.
And if you kind of think about what life is like, there's a sort of a natural growth pattern.
You know, as an infant, we don't have the ability to learn too much until our brain is formed.
And then we go through this steep period of growth and experience, and maybe we're learning the lessons we're supposed to learn, learning to be patient, learning to love or whatever.
And then at some point, we've learned what we can learn in this life, and we need a different set of experiences.
So the natural way is we die naturally, we reincarnate and have a different set of experiences, and we continue to evolve our consciousness in that way.
However, if instead we extend life artificially, we just spend the last 20 years of our lives living in a kind of a miserable way, delaying the point when we're going to reincarnate anyway and slowing down our ability to evolve our consciousness.
The evidence for near-death experiences is actually tremendous.
And the one example I always use, and I hate to always use the same one because I could jump into some others, but it's probably the most dramatic is a woman named Pam Reynolds who was a singer from Atlanta.
Well, I mean, there are certain things, as we discussed.
We have the laws of physics that pretty much are repeatable and very scientific.
and I hate to jump away from where I normally am discussing paranormal-type things, NDEs and all the rest of it, but I don't hold that they're absolute truths.
I just can't until I...
I can't even positively say there is a God at this moment.
I suppose I believe in very little that I can't touch, prove, or replicate.
I mean, my background is engineering, and I took more physics classes than anything else.
I probably would have headed in that direction if I thought there was more money in it than engineering.
But so, yeah, I have trained in the scientific method, and I was that kind of person.
I'm that kind of left-brained person that needs to be shown things and needs to be shown proof.
But over time, I realized that there's really not much proof about anything.
So it really comes down to the amount of evidence.
And I think there's zero evidence, or very little evidence, for a continuous, deterministic theory of reality and a ton of evidence for this greater theory that I'm talking about.
We're at too high of a level to really see a difference.
But there are possible ways to test it, and this is what makes a good scientific theory.
And they're doing this.
I don't know if you're familiar with the holometer.
I can't remember the name of the guy.
It's at Fermi Lab in Illinois.
They're developing a very sensitive piece of equipment that determines if light has a preferred travel direction, thinking that if we can show that in one direction light travels with a little bit less interference than in another direction, then that might indicate there's sort of a lattice to space.
Unfortunately, they can only go to a certain resolution, which is way above the Planck level, and I kind of suspect that our reality is actually even below the Planck level.
So that's not going to necessarily give us a result, but you have to get pretty deep to be able to see the difference.
Now, the other kinds of things are things like the paranormal things that we talked about.
So if you accept the idea that what we really are is a consciousness, a digital consciousness in a greater system, and I am one and you are one, there's a construct there that we can communicate with.
So I can send you, I think your guy in the break there said pounding packets.
I could pound packets across this construct to you and you could understand what's going on in my head.
Or we could pound packets from a simulation of what the future would look like and have some premonition.
So things like paranormal experiences can be completely explained with a digital nature of reality, but they can't really be explained with a continuous one without invoking all kinds of new fields or forces or something like that.
I remember reading a long time ago about something like that, and there was some light dispersion in the communication channel that made sort of the waveform of light move back in time, but when you did the math, it was the photons were still moving forward.
I'm not sure.
I don't remember that real well.
But I mean, it's an interesting result.
The other thing I would bring to bear on this is the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, which is an experiment that probably has more to do with the observer effect than anything else, but it appears to show retrocausality.
It appears to show that when we observe something, we cause something in the past to change.
The thing with the double slit experiment is that it's been called the most beautiful experiment ever created.
And it's really phenomenal what kinds of questions it's led to in terms of the nature of reality.
So one of them that it's exposed is the idea that when we observe the slit that a particle goes through, the interference pattern disappears because now we've established a definitive position for that particle.
When we don't observe it, there's an interference pattern on the screen beyond the two slits.
And this has baffled people for years, and it's been the reason why they've come up with 15 different interpretations of quantum mechanics, all that have a unique explanation for this effect.
So some people have said, well, it's the act of observing is interfering with the particles.
Like if we're shining light on the particle to see where it goes through, that light is, you know, perturbing it a little bit.
So they keep on getting...
So it's impossible to influence that outcome.
But what happens is when you do observe it, it shows the non-interference pattern.
When you don't observe it, it shows the interference pattern, even retrocausally.
So that's another example of something going back into the past and making a change.
So I think time travel in the sense of going back to, say, the Kennedy assassination and trying to see what happened, I don't know, that might be pretty tough.
However, what do you call them, the remote viewers, the FRI remote viewers, did a lot of things moving around in time as well.
And I think that there's information that's in the quote matrix or in the system that is a record of everything that ever happened.
So therefore, you could tap into that.
You should be able to go back, look, observe it, not necessarily interact with it, but if you do interact with it, then it would probably create some sort of branch that went down a different path then.
I always love that line because people talk about, well, you know, what's on the other side of the moon or what's here, what's there.
The remote viewers thought their way to seeing those kinds of things, and they can think their way with maybe proper protocol, think their way back into this sector that you're talking about and observe things from the past.
And I think that, I mean, I've been meditating for years, and I've found that some of the experiences I've had while meditating kind of defy my sense of logic.
And I think it's the clearing of the mind that allows you to maybe push some packets around, to tap into some things, to tap into the greater reality that you're not normally able to do because your mind's full of monkey chatter.
And let's take what Ikoki, the research lab in Vienna, found out.
They determined, they did some experiments that are based on the double-slit experiment, that objective reality doesn't exist to a certainty of one in 80 orders of magnitude.
So again, if it's all subjective reality, then it's a lot softer than we think it is.
And we just need to learn how to adapt to that or how to make use of it or whatever.
And the ones that do are people like, I haven't actually had a direct conversation with Michi Okaku, but people like that who have an open mind, I really respect that.
I mean, I respect all science.
I respect people who have a very narrow focus and know everything about their field.
But like Mahatma Gandhi once said, an expert is somebody who knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.
So if you're not getting the big picture, you have a little bit of a tunnel vision.
And I think sometimes scientists do have tunnel vision.
Their foundation of their research or the basis of their tenure is based on what everybody else thinks.
And so they can't stray too far outside of that.
And I've actually heard a lot of scientists say things like, oh, I love what he's doing over there.
And the way I view it is that God is not an intentional creator.
He's not a human-like form, a guy with a big white beard.
So I don't even like using the word God because words are powerful.
Words are, you know, we all have impressions that come Into our mind when we say words, and God is one of those things that everybody has some impression about.
What do you mean by that?
So I tend to use the word system, but that sounds really cold and calculating.
All that there is, people use the universe, but that then conflicts with the physical universe that astronomers use.
So I don't know, let's just talk about the system.
And a lot of this research actually comes from Tom Campbell and Stephen Kaufman and some others.
So these guys have really thought this through a lot.
However, the evidence, again, I use the word evidence in a pretty broad sense.
The evidence of the people who have had near-death experiences and out-of-body experiences and spiritual experiences or mystical experiences is not horrifying.
It's not that they're encountering some weird alien race that are overlords or that they're experiencing this geeky kid in his mom's basement creating a universe.
The experiences are typically consistent and they're more holistic, they're more seeing light, they're more connected-oriented.
And that leads me to think that the greater system, or God, is really this big set of consciousness, this big global consciousness that we really are part of.
And it's probably dispassionate.
I don't know that it's designing our life for us.
I think that it probably has a mechanism in it where it keeps on improving itself.
It's driven, Tom Campbell's theory is that it's driven by like an evolutionary rule of continuous improvement.
That makes a whole lot of sense to me.
That's really all you need to be able to create a universe over time that has these amazingly perfect criteria that we apparently have.
All right, well, let's flip it for a second, Jim, and let's forget about whether we're in a matrix.
But we are, I'll say it again, advancing so quickly that if you look at the last 50 years and project, I don't know, 300 years from now, we might well be in a position to be gods ourselves and to create a world with living,
conscious, aware entities that may or may not have a soul, depending on whether you think that when we attain AI, the soul comes along with it, or what we call the soul.
What would be the ethical arguments about us creating such a world ourselves?
Yeah, I guess I don't, I mean, the ethical argument is, you know, let's not destroy the planet.
And so if we can, you know, create something that is self-sufficient, that works in a holistic way with the rest of the planet, I don't see a problem with it.
Yes, there are going to be dangers to that kind of thing.
Somebody may subvert the program and create a Skynet, but...
We would be creating a world and the beings in that world, the little digital beings in that world who had awareness and artificial intelligence or intelligence.
Why not just use that word and free will?
They could throw the packets around in their little world any way they wanted to, and we could sort of just watch, and we could either make rules or not make rules for them.
And, I mean, what would be the ethics of doing that?
So if you could imagine that we are a digital construct by whoever, then we will eventually get to that place ourselves and become gods if we wish to be and create little worlds that are self-sufficient or destroy themselves.
Or, I don't know, we can sit back and watch the game, see what happens.
And simply by saying it or performing a few, well, let's say miracles.
That's really a good word.
You know, like parting the little digital sea that we've created or, I don't know, creating a God for them to see who then would go away and promise to come back someday or something like that.
Well, there's another direction we could be heading, too.
And I think that's very likely what you're describing, that we're going to create these kinds of AIs and experiment with them and watch them interact with each other and so forth.
And I just checked with a whole bunch of friends of mine.
Most of them said they remember it, as do I, being called Berenstein, spelled S-T-E-I-N.
That's right.
But if you Google it now, everything is spelled S-T-A-I-N, and it's pronounced Berenstein Bears.
Blitz, Blitz, Blitz.
That, to me, might be kind of the smoking gun of this whole thing.
And the way it could possibly work is imagine that you have this simulation of sorts, and it goes down a certain path.
And there's data that's created in a simulation.
We all have data that's in our brains.
We have data that may be in a kind of a sticky environment that we retain as we go from life to life.
And data that we kind of store away from experiences.
And there are these artifacts in the world, artifacts like books and records in the Google Index and things like that.
So we've gone down this path, we've created all this stuff, and then for some reason, God, the system, all that there is, the universe, whatever we want to call it, has replaced some of those artifacts with Baron Stain.
They replaced Baron Stein with Baron Stain.
And so now we're all baffled because what we have in our conscious recollection, they didn't replace all the artifacts.
We still have in our memories the old thing, but the other artifacts in this, quote, reality learning lab have been replaced.
So the model explains it really well.
I don't know why this would happen.
It certainly might be another, you know, it might be, hey, you know, guys, here's another indication that you're not living in a deterministic, materialistic reality.
All right, so let's imagine for a second that we're sitting in front of a computer 300 years from now, and it's a computer we can't even imagine, but it can create these artificially intelligent, sorry, Jim, conscious entities that are in this world that this amazing computer has created.
But all of a sudden, the very worst happens, and it blue screens.
Oh, damn, we don't have it backed up.
Well, what happened to those intelligent, conscious beings that were running around in that packet-pausing world?
They're suddenly gone, and there's no backup.
And so a body might say, well, yeah, but they're not really gone because, well, you know, energy is never really eradicated.
One thing is the murder rate has decreased significantly in most all societies over the last few hundred years.
If you look at the murder rate from Europe 300 years ago, I don't remember the numbers, maybe 100 times what it is today.
And yeah, we have these moments of, or these periods of chaos brought about by economic cycles or wars or whatever, that may tip things in the other direction.
But across the longer term, we definitely seem to have more respect for our fellow humans than we used to.
And I also think we have a lot more respect for animals than we used to.
I just remember when I was a kid that there was kind of no thought about taking a pet to be euthanized or treating animals in a zoo as a curiosity.
Now we're concerned about do they have the right amount of space?
Should they even be in a zoo?
Are they conscious entities?
Should they be on the other side of the glass watching us?
And I really applaud these kinds of direction of thinking because I think they are conscious entities just like we are.
I think even this sort of sharing economy that we're in now with Uber and Lyft and Airbnb, people are moving away from the strong materialist urges of amassing things.
There's movements toward living more simply, living in smaller places, collecting less stuff, having more experiences.
It does seem like things are heating up for whatever political reasons they are, and that is going to happen once in a while.
I think in the bigger picture, these kinds of things are sort of like spikes.
They're local maxima in terms of danger or whatever.
But ultimately, I still think that over a longer period of time, you know, longer time scales, that our world does become more humane and safer in general.
Now, of course, there are certain regions that that's just not the case.
Yep, and I think, you know, we've always faced those kinds of possible doomsday scenarios.
We definitely had that in the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.
People back in the Industrial Revolution were talking about that being the end of the world.
The population explosion was supposed to be catastrophic and cause us to not be able to support sustaining life, human life within 20 or 30 years, and that didn't happen.
Cloning was supposed to be a disaster.
Nanotech is supposed to be a disaster.
All these things have a dangerous side.
And I'm not saying that it's responsible to just let them all happen and assume that smart scientists and technologists will figure out ways to prevent the ugly stuff from happening.
I think that would be foolish to have that point of view.
But I do think there seems to be some sort of evening effect or some sort of corrective function that gets applied, whether it's human creativity or whether it's this bigger system, this bigger consciousness system that is sort of looking out for keeping the reality simulation going, we seem to have this evening effect where things never quite get to too serious of a crisis point.
Yes, we have wars, but we don't destroy humanity.
Now, right now, we're in this possible sixth extinction phase, which is pretty ugly on a greater scale than the Cold War.
You know, the fact that we're wiping out species left and right, that's a pretty ugly thing, too.
They could, but it could also be, aren't, that they aren't watching, that they're not sentient, that basically, you know, we got created through a self-evolving system.
In fact, I think it might have even been Hawking that had one of these ideas about how the universe could have been so finely tuned that it kind of reached back in time and corrected itself.
And he had, I forget what the theory was, but a way to explain how that happened.
And I think pretty much the way you described it is most likely the way it is.
If you could imagine the global consciousness or all that there is as being like a big cloud, and your consciousness is a subset of that cloud.
It's sort of a group of bits within that cloud that's organized.
And my consciousness is also in there.
And so is arts and everybody else.
And the gnats and the mosquitoes and the cats and the dogs and everybody else has their own little consciousness in that cloud that's separate but all connected together.
And what we do is we interact with another part of the cloud, which Tom Campbell calls the reality learning lab.
But it's generated by the system for us to feel hardness, to feel this consensus so that we evolve.
Remember, the whole goal of the consciousness system is to evolve itself, and it does that by having each part of it break itself into little parts, each of which evolve itself.
And how do they evolve itself?
Well, we wouldn't evolve if we were just dreaming and imagining things, because we wouldn't learn from that.
But we do learn from a consensus reality.
So the system has evolved to have a mechanism, call it a program that runs, that is this physical reality that we live in, and we connect to it while we're alive.
When we die, That connection goes away.
Our consciousness remains.
We wipe out the temporary data that we retain during our lifetime, but we retain the soul data or the portion of the learning that we got from our life that was the whole point of our life.
And then we reconnect if we want to.
And people who have traveled to these realms, and I know that sounds very woo-woo, but there's actually a lot of corroborating evidence of people who do this and have mutual lucid dreaming and things like this that can't really be explained through just imagination.
But people who travel to these realms experience these kinds of things and experience this meeting spirit guides that help design their life so that they can learn to love and provide service and so forth.
So yeah, I think it's separate consciousness entities within a bigger cloud connected to a system that is generating the reality that we're experiencing.
unidentified
Thank you.
That's great.
Earlier you talked about energy not being destroyed.
In the holographic universe theory, there is an idea that around black holes or around the edge of the universe, you want to say that all data is actually printed in a two-dimensional nature, that reality is projected through this.
When we pass back and forth through these barriers, our memories are wiped, so to speak.
So you're saying that that's only a one-way wipe, that we don't forget about this experience when we leave or pass through those barriers?
One is the holographic projection, the whole black hole theory.
That is just a theory, but it's an interesting one in the sense that the people who've done the research have shown that energies and characteristics of a reality in 10 dimensions is similar to the one that's projected on the surface of a black hole.
So it kind of looks like there's evidence for a simulation, but they're using the idea of a black hole as a vehicle for creating this holographic projection.
I don't know that you need to do that.
I think that a lot of these ideas are at sort of a higher level.
The very deep, fundamental level of reality is the stuff I'm talking about, the digital consciousness theory.
Quantum mechanics sits on top of that.
Holographic theory probably sits between quantum mechanics and the digital consciousness theory.
And stuff like, you know, way up high are things like, oh, the secret or placebo effect.
And those are all explained by the holographic theory, which is in turn explained by digital consciousness theory.
unidentified
Thank you so much.
Shout out.
We all love you, Rhonda.
And thank you for asking and answering my questions.
But the main one I really want to know is if you look at the history of humanity, there seems to be kind of patterns emerging in relation to revolutions and wars and so on.
How far do you think we are away from, say, like a humanity-changing event?
And have you looked into kind of patterns of currency wars, world wars, trade wars, and so on?
And what do you think is coming up next, next maybe year to three years?
Yeah, definitely there are patterns in a couple of levels.
I'm sure you're familiar with the Hegelian dialectic where you've got some status quo and then there's some disruptive energy or some disruptive pattern or force, whether it's a political structure or technology or something like that.
And they conflict and then there's conflict and then there becomes a synthesis of those two ideas and that pattern keeps on repeating throughout history.
But there also seems to be fractal-like patterns to reality in the way people think, the way you see physical fractals within reality.
And I think that probably has to do with the fact that fractals are a very efficient way to generate things computationally.
So for example, like a recursive program that wants to generate a shoreline, it's a lot more efficient to do it in a fractal way than it is to do it through brute force or something.
So some of these patterns that we see in humanity and in our universe, I think might be signs of the underlying structure.
It's just, it's really hard to correlate it, I think, at This point.
No, I think the former, I'm sure Art will say I'm overly optimistic here, but I feel like humanity seems to have at its core the ability to band together and come up with creative ideas, whether you call it tapping into global consciousness or community effects or something like that.
And so shared economy is one of these things.
We're toppling big companies by giving away patents.
Tesla gave away their patents, which just scares the heck out of other automobile manufacturers that are holding on to their patents.
And it's a whole different way of being, and it runs completely counter to the authoritarian, totalitarian types of mentality, and it seems to be gaining strength.
So if anything, I think we would be headed more in that direction and less in a totalitarian direction.
Anyways, I was just wondering, I've been watching this little cartoon on Adult Swim, I guess.
It's a cartoon network offshoot of some sort called Rick and Morty.
And they usually reference a lot of sort of simulated realities.
And coincidentally, I guess they re-rate an episode from the second season last night where I guess the main character, the scientist, creates like a mini-universe and has to go into that universe to fix the problem.
And inside that universe, they created another universe and they kind of go like two or three layers down.
But I guess my question is, if these rules for sort of like evolutionary or sort of an evolving simulation, what are the odds, you think,
that in each of these or in a simulation that there are sort of like, I guess like inherited traits from, I guess, the parent universe into the children universes, I guess, that are inside those universes?
I mean, there can definitely be sort of layers of simulation.
So, for example, let's say we're in a simulation.
We create simulations, and within those simulations, you know, other simulations could be created, and they are going to inherit some patterns and things.
Yeah, there's one with a lady called Matilda O'Donnell McElroy.
And it's kind of similarities there between what Jim was saying about these guys and what this alien is relating to her regarding souls being recycled and things like this.
And it's just sort of struck a bit of a chord in me.
I mean, I'm not saying, you know, that's sort of truth.
I mean, this big consciousness system, I'm sure, is huger than we can imagine and probably has more space for as many souls as it needs.
Maybe as more souls get generated, each one takes up a different level of percentage of the global consciousness system.
I don't know that it's got some limit.
But one of the things that I did think was kind of interesting is the idea that if you take a bunch of boulders and you put a bunch of boulders together and you can fit some pebbles in between the boulders and then you can fit grains of sand in between the pebbles, and those boulders could be like the human consciousness and the pebbles are more like a cat or something and the grains of sand or insects and so forth.
So an efficient way to subdivide your big cloud of consciousness is to have different species with different levels of consciousness all the time.
I know it doesn't quite go to that question about new souls forming, but I think there's actually some speculation, some people who have experienced things where their soul has actually incarnated multiple people at the same time.
And so it gets to be kind of an odd question, I suppose.
You know, the thing about UFOs, too, is that if you think about this model where we have this reality learning lab and it has rules of physics that we all recognize and follow and interact with, but because it is a digital system that is,
you know, that can generate pretty much anything, there can be things outside of the normal rules of physics that exist, or things that certain people can see and other people can't see.
There's no reason why that couldn't be the case for whatever reason.
So, I mean, example, you know, with a virtual reality game or a massively online role-playing game, you would have to have a certain level of spiritual points in order to see the monsters.
You know what I mean?
So all of this could be part of the reason that some people see UFOs and some don't, or that they seem to behave, you know, counter to the laws of physics.
And anyway, well, they've been getting into a little bit of science with their junior high school classes where they build electrical circuits and even computer circuits within the game itself, which kind of acts like a, I don't know, emulator for.
You remember the old Heathboard kits?
Well, they do kind of the same thing, but they do it in Minecraft.
They use games mechanics to build clocks and even whole computer systems.
Well, that is just within the game itself, and the game is just one encapsulation of the world.
I just had a mind vendor of a thought.
What if this matrix you're talking about is just one encapsulation among many and whoever's or like one matrix among many, you know, six billion people in one world, but another, I don't know how you put it, universe, there's six billion other people and they're living out their entire thing.
And our masters or whoever's running this whole system are just running entire, you know, huge farms of this stuff.
And, you know, I can definitely imagine, you know, we talked about this reality learning lab.
That could be just one segment of the organization of the global consciousness system that we all attach to.
And there could be another reality learning lab right next to it that another set of souls attach to or whatever.
So, yeah, definitely a possibility.
Tom Campbell kind of formulates this a little bit and he calls them physical matter realities and non-physical matter realities and has a whole big picture of what could be.
The interesting thing to me is that over time, our horizons keep on expanding.
There was a time when we were like a continental society.
We didn't realize there was anything beyond the continents.
Then we got on boats and realized there were other continents out there.
And then we were a planetary society.
And then we became a solar society when we realized there were other planets.
And we became a galactic society and so forth.
The discovery of multiple galaxies in the universe as we know it was really within the last hundred years or so.
And then, maybe 10, 15 years ago, people like Max Tegmark start talking about parallel realities of different types.
And now what you're talking about, Sean, and what I also covered in the book a little bit, is the idea that those parallel realities could be in the physical sense, but outside of that is stuff that we could never connect to, completely other sections of parallel realities that are physical as well.
So, yeah, great example of how we can be expanding our horizons.
Real quick, I hope you can get Alan Moore on as a guest.
I'm a big fan of the graphic novel Planetary by Warren Ellis.
And he plays with the idea of the universe being a hologram a lot.
And one of his stories featured an intergalactic informational drive, which would scoop up information from the informational substance underneath, scoop it up, and use that as fuel for a space engine, for a spaceship.
And I was wondering how you think that would the possibility of that using that, if using that.
I'm just wondering if you've ever heard of the Law of One series, because this sounds awfully like that series that was supposedly a channeling of a million-year-old plus entity called Raw.
And he talks all about this stuff.
And I know one of your buddies, I forgot his name, David Wilcock, talked about the Law of One a lot.
But you should really check that out because it has some insights.
And, you know, people choose to believe in a lot of stuff.
It's so like, I should say, I'm a very analytic thinker, and it's like religion and science put together, but it talks exactly like you're talking about.
You might want to check it out and get some insights, at least some food for thought for later on.
To be honest, my thoughts are that the whole soul recycling being on the moon is a bit odd to me, and it's kind of a one-person view of how this might work, as opposed to the greater system that I've been talking about is really consistent with a whole lot of other cultures and views.
But that said, people who have experienced, say, past lives or tapped into these kinds of things do say that when you recycle, you may go from being a male to a female or vice versa.
So It's perfectly possible that you're used to being a male, and now, or vice versa, and your next body is the opposite gender, and it doesn't feel quite right to you.
As a matter of fact, generally, Jim, from birth or from the moment that a person can relate their sexuality or their feelings of their sexuality, they are saying, I'm in the wrong body.
Yeah, it might not be what they were expecting for one reason or another.
And one of the things I find kind of interesting is the whole nature versus nurture argument, especially as it relates to identical twin studies.
So identical twins who have not been separated grew up with the same genetics or nearly the same genetics in the same environment, and yet one of them has one set of values, the other has another set of values.
One of them is homosexual, the other one is heterosexual.
You know, what explains these differences could be something that it's more the soul.
It's more their innate nature and where they were previously, or their whole history of their soul evolution could be completely different than their sibling.
And I don't know if you're a member, but I've called before about this very topic, so I'm really happy and excited to have tuned in today to listen to Jim talk.
I just have two, I guess, two brief questions.
My first question is about whether or not, Jim, I'm sorry, if you've read or heard about, I guess, these findings about quasars and the way that they're aligned, there was an article a while ago that was talking about their alignment not lining up with how scientists have predicted, that they seem to be aligned not randomly but connected despite the fact that they're many light years separated from each other.
I do remember when quasars were first discovered, the speculation was that they were something very different than what they think they are now.
I think it was considered to be like a big chunk of primordial fireball or something like that.
And over time, they've realized that, no, they're not.
They have a more mundane explanation.
So this alignment could be significant in the sense of a structured universe or a designed universe, but it could also be something that's well explained by, for example, the fact that the physical universe is much greater than, much larger than we think it is, and therefore we see patterns that shouldn't be there if it was smaller.
I don't know if that makes any sense.
But there are certain patterns that they've now attributed to the likelihood that the universe is a different size than was originally thought.
And one of the more fascinating things is that there seems to be this, I don't know if I would call it planning, but this sort of like perfect order about how things line up on the different filaments in the universe.
And with the way that you get down into the extreme micro scale with like plank length and the size of things, it seems as if there's this sort of perfect structure or something approaching perfection that may not be accidental.
But my last question is a little bit more lighthearted.
And I know you mentioned earlier that if we knew for a fact that we lived in a simulation, that it really wouldn't affect our lives in a meaningful way.
And I disagree, I think, just in a matter of degree, which is, you know, what do we do if we know that we're in a simulation?
And some people online had mentioned, you know, I think that the solution would be to work very hard to make our own simulation.
So that way, if anybody above us is ever watching us, they'll see that we have a simulation.
And then they'll have this existential moment of crisis where they're going to feel like they can't pull the plug on us because then maybe there's something above that.
They're going to get turtles all the way down and all that.
But that was my last comment.
Thank you so much, Art.
And shout out to the Art Bells and then the Desert Facebook group.
If I may, Art, on that topic, what he talked about was one type of simulation, the kind of simulation that I'm referring to that has a greater purpose and has a reincarnation and everything.
There is something to understanding and believing in that idea that it can be significantly changing to your life and to your outlook.
So, for example, you realize that we're no longer in this hedonistic survival game that's based on fear and scarcity of resources, and therefore, as a result, we have better treatment of and respect for fellow humans and other species.
If we knew that souls are independent of real religion or region or something like that, we'd be less likely to conduct wars.
So I think there is, you know, it does matter.
And this model really, to me, is the only thing that makes sense.
It explains quantum mechanics anomalies.
It explains almost everything.
And if it is true, then, you know, it's actually kind of an inspirational idea.
With the discussion that's going on tonight, is there a possibility that when we go to sleep, that our dreams are not our own, that possibly these dreams are being interjected into our minds by this possibility of a matrix.
Well, it's a beautiful question because we could really dive down into what reality is and what consciousness is and how dreams relate.
To me, dreams aren't that much different than the waking state.
It's a subjective experience.
And people have a pseudo-consensus reality when they have something called mutual lucid dreams.
Lucid dreams are when you can control your dream and basically dream what you want to, carry out your own kind of fantasy.
But mutual lucid dreams happen between people who could be separated by miles, and they're experiencing each other in the dream and experiencing the same environment and that kind of thing.
And then they write their notes down and compare them later on.
So experiments have done where mutual lucid dreams have actually been sort of initiated between people.
The Monroe Institute has done this.
I've had a mutual lucid dream with somebody once too.
So yeah, the dreaming aspect is another subjective experience using the same constructs that our physical reality uses.
Well, the vision that I had and the idea that I was able to explore within that was that each individual is a black hole and that we're closely associated.
Black holes absorb everything that comes near them, and I don't know as individuals were yet capable of that.
unidentified
Well, what I was thinking was there's an event horizon on the black hole.
Yes.
And that you could navigate, that somehow, whoever we are, could navigate forward and backward in time associating with other black holes who are individuals.
Well, there certainly is a theory that if you enter the event horizon of a black hole, you may well travel back in time, or you may be scattered forever.
Yeah, if I remember right, isn't Hawking radiation something that is slightly below the surface of the event horizon, but due to quantum mechanical probabilities, it exists also on the outside of the event horizon?
I could use three shows, three more shows like this before we'd even begin to get a good understanding of what this is all about.
Maybe there's a cosmic reset button up there.
One of these days, my little buddy Anzeta Reticuli will push reset.
And the next thing you'll see, some real good-looking gal offering some guy an apple or something.
And there we go again.
Let's go overseas.
Jasmunda in Australia.
You're on the air.
unidentified
Hello.
Hi, Art.
Hi.
What a fantastic show.
I think it's one of my favorite topics now.
And I think it's actually even scarier than ghosts or demons or any such thing.
It is.
Now, what really scares me, I think, is the fact that we could be living in a simulation within a simulation within a simulation.
And even if we get out of our simulation, we're in another simulation.
Now, do you remember or recall a Star Trek The Next Generation episode where Data was on the holodeck and he used to play Sherlock Holmes fantasy games or whatever.
And he had a nemesis Moriarty.
And Moriarty became self-aware.
And the whole episode ended up with him thinking he escaped the holodeck, but really he was just within another simulation.
So, yeah, I guess one thing I'd say is that most of us don't feel like we're living in a prison now.
And certainly the reports from people who have had near-death experiences is that that's not a prison, that that's a wonderful, wonderful place.
But even when they're in that place, they still want to get back into reality and experience more of the physical reality.
So, you know, of all the research I've done, of all the people who have experienced these kinds of things, I haven't really found anybody who doesn't want to continue living in the simulation if that's what it is.
So the only ones we hear from are the ones who either are told to go back or want to go back.
Jazz, would you say as correct?
unidentified
Well, perhaps the light that everyone is seeing is the spotlight.
The prison guards are shining on them, and the ones that continue toward the light get shot, and the ones that go back are the ones that go back into the prison.
I saw a video on YouTube a while ago about some lady and talking about her experiences on LSD and explaining that her and her friends were very heavy into LSD at one point in time.
And they were able to communicate nonverbally and hear each other's voices in their head by using heavy doses of LSD.
And they said they confirmed it by asking each other to perform different things like picking their hands up or winking an eye or vice versa.
No, I've known of people who have both independently seen families of aliens at a swimming pool while on LSD.
So, you know, I'm not one who uses this kind of thing, although I have had an experience with DMT, which is, you know, very, very different.
But some of the research does say that, you know, the brain is kind of like a radio, and you can switch into different realities.
And, you know, certain, you know, there might be shortcuts of ways to be able to connect with people or tap into different realities.
I wouldn't recommend doing that, but for those who have experimented with it, Rick Strassman did some great research on DMT, and most of the people who experienced that in a clinical environment felt that the reality they experienced on DMT was more real than the one that they normally live in.
Well, I wonder, what if all celestial bodies are alive?
And we have just a parasitic life form on it on many layers.
I mean, like human animals, bacteria, whatever.
And all these celestial bodies being probably very powerful entities, they can create multi-dimensional realities, which in our understanding are sort of fiber optics communication, so to speak.
Yeah, and I, you know, actually, I don't discount that.
I mean, I think the Earth is an evolving organism, and if you try to pin down what life really is, you know, things like fire exhibit the five characteristics of life.
I don't think fire really is life.
But the Earth seems to react.
It seems to have a breathing kind of apparatus and very well might have consciousness.
And Jim, yeah, I'm calling you all the way from Australia.
And I've got a question and also a bit of an amusing comment that I've sort of stumbled upon.
Sure.
So my question is, because of the lifestyle and the limitations of knowledge that we have and that we live in, how can we not assess that basically the universe or simulated universe theory is nothing different than saying God's angry and it's thundering?
So I'm just curious, have you determined or is there anything that you've come across that sort of overrides this theory?
I try to follow a scientific model, which is, you know, looking at different categories of evidence and what they imply.
And based on all of that, if you imagine, say, a Venn diagram where certain anomalies, you know, in an anomaly space, you put circles around the things that one theory can describe, the thing that can describe everything is what I'm talking about.
So that's actually a valid form of science, which is finding the best fit explanation for all the anomalies that exist.
You know, it's a little bit beyond kind of a very superfluous idea of God being angry.
This is really based on a lot of research and a lot of real science.
unidentified
So you're saying it's basically overlapping results and pretty much?
Well, I think we talked about some of the categories of evidence earlier on, but things like the fact that there's a digital nature to things, that infinite resolution breaks down in physics,
that consciousness doesn't emanate from the brain, that computational systems behave exactly the way quantum mechanics says reality behaves, the results from quantum mechanics experiments like the double slit experiment, like all of these things add up to kind of point to one, you know, one global theory, which is that the universe is digital and the conscious is primary.
unidentified
Yeah, very interesting.
And the comment that I sort of wanted to put forth, I did come across at some point in time a video on YouTube that used a simulated universe and the people who were actually within it were students and the way that they pretty much designated who would have what job is by the life that they led.
So trippy sort of idea that technically the experiences that we're going through could potentially be what jobs we're going to be assigned to in the future when we wake up.
Well, boy, I probably shouldn't have even said that, but I guess, you know, now that the cat's out of the bag, basically it's kind of the way it's described.
You know, the reality that I was able to observe visually completely went away, and a new one took its place, and the one that took its place was very fractal.
It was beautiful, it was unfolding colors, flowers, you know, geometrical patterns, like fractal patterns.
But at the same time, I was fully conscious.
I mean, I could hear what was happening around me, I could hear people moving around in the room, I knew exactly what was going on.
All I had to do was get past the two minutes or three minutes that this experience took, and then I was just back to where I was before.
So it was really an interesting idea.
And there was somebody who wrote a paper on this, I think the guy's name was Gallimore, if I remember, where he looked at the patterns in the brain on DMT, and not on DMT.
By the way, DMT is, other than sugar, fructose or glucose, it's the one thing that passes through the blood-brain barrier.
So it's like your brain craves this as much as it craves this one other chemical, glucose, that it gets its nourishment from.
So it occurs naturally.
It occurs naturally in the brain.
And it's a mystery that some people say it changes the channel of your perception.
Yeah, so I think we're outside of the time-space continuum that we know of, because that time-space continuum is an artifact of the reality learning lab, which is part of this system.
So we really exist outside of that.
Do we want to escape it?
I don't know that we do.
You know, if we want to, I don't have a theory on how to do it, but again, like I said before, from the people who have done astral traveling or had out-of-body experiences or near-death experiences or past life regressions or whatever, there isn't a whole lot of desire to escape.
Very quickly on Skype, Bill, you're on the air with Jim.
unidentified
Yeah, you had a guest on the other night, and when you talked about the cloud, it made me kind of recollect he said our long-term memory has a possibility of being stored elsewhere.
So that made me want to call in, and I'll take my comment off the air.
Yeah, so I think that there is some evidence that the brain's capacity is limited and that long-term memory...
And yet, some people are able, I think it's called eidetic memory or something like that, they're able to recall what they had for breakfast on a particular day and recall the scene around them.
Some people are able to tap into very much details around specific things, which tells me that they have access to everything.